Why should Feats be BETTER than Rage Powers, though?
Why should Feats be BETTER than Rage Powers, though?
Shouldn't they be slightly better considering that they only happen during rage.
I disagree with 2+INT being enough skills to go around. Like someone higher up said, skills are the main means of dealing with problems in a mundane way, and as the most mundane class a Fighter has nothing else. Being focused on combat is nice and all but like what a lot of people are saying a Barbarian probably has a life MORE consumed by combat and yet has more means to solve problems with skills. I noted pages ago is that even if I have a class that is very combat focused that's never the only part of the game. there are challenges beyond combat and I don't want to stick around with my thumbs up my ass because when we're doing something other than swinging swords, especially since swinging a sword is useless against several kinds of monsters.
Now this gets completely negated if skills were more useful or the fighter had more means to use certain skills. A thought had crossed my mind is that martial classes have more of an ability to use a magic sword because it is a sword and a sorcerer is not going into melee no matter how many combat feats the bloodline gives, and even though the game doesn't exactly support it I'd like to see more weapon properties that activate based on BAB or UMD. Sure a Fighter can use a magic sword and swing it around but if he has some arcane knowledge he can harness and wield it's power better. Another idea was that perhaps knowledge engineering could (with a feat) give access to Macguyvering things into weapons or using weapons in unique ways. Perhaps ranks in it being prerequisites for things like using daggers to climb up a giant's back or use an anklys in tandem with another martial to grapple a large monster.
Now I'm not going to complain too much because there's at least one archetype that gives a fighter extra skills and skill ranks, and it's my immediate go-to whenever I do take fighter but when I was a vanilla fighter the lack of skills hurt really bad and each scene where we did a long list of things where there wasn't combat I didnt' do anything.
Why should Feats be BETTER than Rage Powers, though?
Rage powers make an already nice feature (Rage) better.
Both the barbar and the fighter get feats. Both fall short of full casters do to the lack of scaling with their feats.
The fighter feels this more than the barbar because good rage powers scale with levels.
I think feats should be better than rage powers because rage is better than weapon training. Being able to boost your strength and con and save (plus rage power bonuses) is sexy. High strength score brings alot of utility.
Also the barbar gets 4+skill points per level.
I know some Rage Powers used to be feats in 3.5.
Shock Trooper specifically comes to mind.
Personally, I think Weapon Focus should be based on damage type rather than a specific weapon, or at least a weapon group like Weapon Training is, and it too should scale with BAB.
EDIT: Also I really like this archetype. I feel it would be perfect if the fighter got these class features and retained at least his proficiencies, that said, he can still take heavy armor proficiency as a feat.
One of the problems I have with giving the fighter more skill points is because that is an easy-bad-lazy band-aid to the Fighter utility problem. It is one of those solutions that reeks of "power-creep".
Here's a cycle
1. Fight gets 4+int
2. No one should have 2+int
3. Wizard, Cleric, Summoner, Paladin ect get 4+int
4. Actual 4+int classes feel shafted. They get 6+int. (except for the barbar who now becomes angry fighter with little actual difference between the two)
5. Rangers feel shafted. They get 8+int
6. Problems with the Rogue come to a head
7. Rogues get 10+int and full BAB
8. Fighter need more skill points
9. Fighters get 6+int
...
I know some Rage Powers used to be feats in 3.5.
Shock Trooper specifically comes to mind.Personally, I think Weapon Focus should be based on damage type rather than a specific weapon, or at least a weapon group like Weapon Training is, and it too should scale with BAB.
Ehhh there are a lot of fighters of lore that specialize in a particular weapon. Weapon focus represents those people.
Marthkus, buffing a UP class is not Power Creep. That is balancing.
Power Creep is not a catch-all for "Something got more powerful", as many seem to think. It's a term that calls out already powerful or balanced classes getting MORE powerful, in the context of the entire game.
Ehhh there are a lot of fighters of lore that specialize in a particular weapon. Weapon focus represents those people.I know some Rage Powers used to be feats in 3.5.
Shock Trooper specifically comes to mind.Personally, I think Weapon Focus should be based on damage type rather than a specific weapon, or at least a weapon group like Weapon Training is, and it too should scale with BAB.
Then invent another feat to go with it, that requires focus and specialization in that damage type, and have it apply only to that weapon, but have it be badass, something along the lines of:
Melee Weapon Focus
Prerequisite: BAB +1
Select one damage type (slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning). You gain a +1 on attack rolls with weapons of that type. When your BAB reaches +8 and every 7 after that, increase this bonus by +1.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times, its effects do not stack. When you do it applies to a different damage type.
It scales, and it doesn't limit you if you find some crazy good magical weapon that isn't the same thing you've been swinging around since lvl 2.
Melee Weapon Specialization
Prerequisites: BAB +4, Weapon Focus
Select one weapon that does the damage type for which you have the Weapon Focus feat. You do an additional +2 damage with weapons of that type. This damage does multiply on a critical hit. When your BAB reached +12 and every 6 after, increase the damage by another +2. Every even BAB after you take this feat you may select a different specialized weapon, replacing the old one.
Special: You can take this feat multiple times, its effects do not stack. When you do it applies to a different weapon for which you have the Weapon Focus feat for the appropriate damage type.
Again, scaling, and there's only one feat instead of two.
Now we have this:Melee Weapon Perfection
Prerequisites: BAB +15, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization
Select one specific weapon that does the damage type for which you have the Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats. All numeric bonuses you gain on attack and damage rolls you get from feats or enhancement bonuses on the weapon itself are doubled. In addition, you can make an additional attack with this weapon at your full BAB bonus, even if you moved more than 5 feet this round. This is an extraordinary ability and will stack with effects like Haste or a Speed weapon. Attacks made with this weapon automatically bypass any DR the attack's target might possess.
Essentially I want the Weapon Focus chain to mirror the Spell Focus chain, I also like increasing the bonus from Focus and Specialization one additional time once you get to higher levels. Bypassing DR is also a big deal. The main problem I can see people having with this is the language, and the fact that the way I have it worded here make the feats open to any martial character, where others may feel this should be fighter specific. Personally, I think that the feats should all be open and that fighters should be able to take more than one type of specialization allowing them to be more versatile and effective in combat than any other class.
When it comes to what fighters do out of combat, I feel it should have something to do with their weapons since it is what fighters do. Making fighters the best crafters, or giving them some kind of instant appraise or identify ability when it comes to weapons and armor might make it well worth while to have a fighter in the party.
One of the problems I have with giving the fighter more skill points is because that is an easy-bad-lazy band-aid to the Fighter utility problem. It is one of those solutions that reeks of "power-creep".
Here's a cycle
1. Fight gets 4+int
2. No one should have 2+int
3. Wizard, Cleric, Summoner, Paladin ect get 4+int
4. Actual 4+int classes feel shafted. They get 6+int. (except for the barbar who now becomes angry fighter with little actual difference between the two)
The answer is to make the ability to choose between a bonus trait granting 4+Int, plus Perception, Sense Motive and Heal, and a bonus feat. It won't apply to the Fighters who are only interested in Fighting, and it could also be available as a Feat for those who become interested later. Other classes aren't shafted, because it only applies to *certain* Fighters!!
Just a 'what if' experiment; What if a lot of things were not class skills, as if unless it was intrinsically linked to what the basic class does it is not a class skill and Traits were the norm giving you a chance to make certain things class skills to represent that your character is knowledgeable about such things. I don't think this would really work out as is, because the skills are definitely not equal, but if they were close enough to be equal it would be interesting.
What if more combat feats scaled by BAB as opposed to level? Wouldn't doing that effectively give Martial classes more of an advantage? (being Martial and all.) Sort of BAB being a Fighter's "caster level"
Now you've got it! Frank and "K" finally came up with that by 2008 or so; I re-invented the wheel a bit later on; hopefully everyone else will follow suit.
What if more combat feats scaled by BAB as opposed to level? Wouldn't doing that effectively give Martial classes more of an advantage? (being Martial and all.) Sort of BAB being a Fighter's "caster level"
Your approach works better.
|
What if fighters got 2+INT skills that could be spent on anything they want, and 2+STR skills that could only be applied to physical ability score based skills? Also, what if instead of bravery, fighter saving throws increased 50% faster than everyone elses, to represent that they become more accustomed to unusual combat situations then other classes? Or maybe they got a BAB that started out as full, accelerated by a factor of x as they progress, showing them becoming masters of armed combat and accelerating faster then normal combatants?
What if fighters got 2+INT skills that could be spent on anything they want, and 2+STR skills that could only be applied to physical ability score based skills? Also, what if instead of bravery, fighter saving throws increased 50% faster than everyone elses, to represent that they become more accustomed to unusual combat situations then other classes? Or maybe they got a BAB that started out as full, accelerated by a factor of x as they progress, showing them becoming masters of armed combat and accelerating faster then normal combatants?
In one of my longer post i mentioned the athletic ability where fighter could roll a d20 + fighter lvl + 3 + str for climb, jump, and swim checks.
That plus 2+int skills per level should be more than enough.
Giving the fighter 2+str skill points is still skill point which I am against giving.
|
|
What if fighters got 2+INT skills that could be spent on anything they want, and 2+STR skills that could only be applied to physical ability score based skills?That woul make them one of the most skilled character in the game. an average fighter with 10 int and 18 str would have 2 free skills plus 6 physical skills. A barbarian or cavalier will need int 18 to have that.
OK, What if fighters got skills equal to 2+INT+STR? Then they'd have as much as a wizard gets, or a ranger, on average. This could be a bit of a stretch. Or maybe additional at certain levels that only apply to Physical abilities. I'm thinking maybe this
What if more combat feats scaled by BAB as opposed to level? Wouldn't doing that effectively give Martial classes more of an advantage? (being Martial and all.) Sort of BAB being a Fighter's "caster level"Now you've got it! Frank and "K" finally came up with that by 2008 or so; I re-invented the wheel a bit later on; hopefully everyone else will follow suit.
That link blew my mind. I need a printable list or a PDF of these. With these Fighter actually has some normal feats to throw at a skill focus or two so I'm not even worried about having 2+INT skills ranks.
What if fighters got 2+INT skills that could be spent on anything they want, and 2+STR skills that could only be applied to physical ability score based skills?That woul make them one of the most skilled character in the game. an average fighter with 10 int and 18 str would have 2 free skills plus 6 physical skills. A barbarian or cavalier will need int 18 to have that.OK, What if fighters got skills equal to 2+INT+STR? Then they'd have as much as a wizard gets, or a ranger, on average. This could be a bit of a stretch. Or maybe additional at certain levels that only apply to Physical abilities. I'm thinking maybe this
** spoiler omitted **
I don't like the idea of giving the fighter more skill points that he can pick where they go.
*Are there any skills anymore that scale off con?
What if fighters got 2+INT skills that could be spent on anything they want, and 2+STR skills that could only be applied to physical ability score based skills? Also, what if instead of bravery, fighter saving throws increased 50% faster than everyone elses, to represent that they become more accustomed to unusual combat situations then other classes? Or maybe they got a BAB that started out as full, accelerated by a factor of x as they progress, showing them becoming masters of armed combat and accelerating faster then normal combatants?In one of my longer post i mentioned the athletic ability where fighter could roll a d20 + fighter lvl + 3 + str for climb, jump, and swim checks.
That plus 2+int skills per level should be more than enough.
Giving the fighter 2+str skill points is still skill point which I am against giving.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm gonna point out a couple issues I have with this as a 'fix':
1 - Why the +3? (I realize that it's to simulate it being a 'class skill' but simply put, it's too much bonus if you're going to give it to the class for free. Casters don't get a +3 on Concentration checks, but they do essentially get it as a "free" skill. So for any skill that any class would get "for free," they'd have to lose the option of having it as a Class Skill, simply out of fairness.)
2 - More importantly than 1, how do you justify this for the Fighter but not the Barb and Ranger, two classes that tend to spend more time than trained Fighters in the wilderness (ie: that place where you need to jump, climb, and swim a lot more than you would in a city)?
The Fighter trains and masters technique heavy martial combat, He is more accurate with his weapons and does more damage with them through training not rage, or knowledge of his enemies.
Further more he builds up his physical prowess and technique to move easier in his armor.
If that doesn't sound like the kind of mastery of body that can be transferred to climb, jump, and swim checks, then I'm not sure what is.
Rangers and Barbar do not have the same rigorous training as the fighter (see starting ages). Their forms of combat do not lend themselves being more coordinated like the fighter. Because of this lack of focus both of them get extra skill points per level than the fighter.
Concentration was balanced to not require the +3. Jump, climb, and swim checks do expect the plus 3.
I could see a more generic Warrior class that has the 4 skill points per level. The special class ability would be something like 2 or 3 Warrior Points per level which are spent on special abilities such as these "improved" leveling feats, Barbarian abilities, Ranger abilities, etc. Maybe pick a specialty of some sort, too, which determines what Warrior abilities are available to you.
It makes the class generic. and yet very versatile so that it can cover all of the different warrior-type classes, and still be a viable class overall.
At least it seems like a good idea in my mind, I have not sat down and played with the numbers.
2 - More importantly than 1, how do you justify this for the Fighter but not the Barb and Ranger, two classes that tend to spend more time than trained Fighters in the wilderness (ie: that place where you need to jump, climb, and swim a lot more than you would in a city)?
Who says that Fighters are strictly city boys? Or for that matter that all Barbarians or Rangers grow up in the howling wilderness? Although I admit that the Ranger / Barbarian wilderness stereotype is fairly reasonable. Given that a huge chunk of the population are rural I'd say that quite a few Fighters are as well.
========
In resume, You do not like to give extra skills for the fighter so he an spend those extra skills in wathever he wants to be good at.
But you are fine with giving extra skill points if they are invested in climb and swim solely.
Don't forget jump!
Yes I see no reason for a 10 int fighter favored class bonus health non-human to be able to max rank bluff, intimidate, diplomacy, and craft alchemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That link blew my mind. I need a printable list or a PDF of these.BEHOLD.
Dat pdf 0_0
It's like the culmination of every complaint about 3.5
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, here's an alternative way around the Fighter's skill problems that might make Marthkus happy, and would work very well in a world where feats scale as in that link:
Skill Focus
You are dedicated to the mastery of a chosen skill.
Benefit: The chosen skill is considered to have ranks equal to your level. Any skill ranks you have invested in the affected skill prior to taking this feat can immediately be reinvested elsewhere.
You may take this feat any number of times but its effects do not stack. In each instance it must apply to a different skill.
Actually, here's an alternative way around the Fighter's skill problems that might make Marthkus happy, and would work very well in a world where feats scale as in that link:
Skill Focus
You are dedicated to the mastery of a chosen skill.
Benefit: The chosen skill is considered to have ranks equal to your level. Any skill ranks you have invested in the affected skill prior to taking this feat can immediately be reinvested elsewhere.
You may take this feat any number of times but its effects do not stack. In each instance it must apply to a different skill.
I like that.
On further consideration I think I'd add the caveat that it can only be taken for class skills. And while the fighter stays at INT+2 skill points, I would give them an extra two class skills of their choosing.
Been taking a break from this (exploding) thread, but there's something I'm concerned about:
I wonder if when many people are saying, "Fighters need more skills" what they actually mean is, "Fighters need enough skill points per level that I can give them every skill that I think fits a 'fighter' style and keep those skills at max ranks at all times."Again, I am of the opinion that "2+Int" isn't enough for any class (Wizards included, but that's a different topic), but honestly you don't have to max all your skills to be viable in skill-use.
Spread the love - quit with the min-maxing mindset.
Do you play beyond level 12 regularly? I think a lot of the clashes you have with the people who want to buff fighters (in this and several other ways) might come fom that.
Yes, at low levels I may "spread the love" at high levrls that DOESN'T WORK.Let's use an example. Let's suppose i want to build a knight-styled character with some dark side, who like to lie, it's a vigilant member of tge king guard, and belong to a noble house, full of traditions. Let's call him "Jamie Kingslayer" for easy reference.
"Jamie" needs to have Ride to fuel his Mounted Combat ability. He also needs perception, being a vigilant king guard. He needs bluff and sensemotive, to fill the concept of lies and overall good social panache. He should have also knowledge nobility and/or history. Probably we should round him with a couple points in proffession soldier, handle animal, climb, swim, jump, etc, as he is quite agile and athlethic without being an acrobat.
At low levels, this is doable. With a cosmopolitan feat, a few traits, we can make several of those skills being class skills. With 2 per level, +1 from human, and maybe +1 from favored bonus if I sacrifice tge HP adventage over druids, magi, summoners and inquisitors, I can quickly cover all my bases. With one rank, plus ability mod, class training, and maybe a trait bonus, I'm ok.
However, once I reach to level 15, my skills are USELESS because I can't keep tgem on par with the challenges. Mounted combat is of no use if I can only give my mount a measly 1/2 my level ranks in AC. At level 15, anything less than a maxed out perception won't see any ambush at all. The obscure lore involved in high level adventures ask for high DC history rolls. I can't deceive anyone with non maxed bluff, because targets with sense motive will havecvery high rolls. Likewise, any one will lie me.
My intimidation will not intimidate anyone, becouse demoralize is based in HD. And so on.
So yes. Fighters ar somewhat ok if you play levels 1-7 rinse and repeat. It's a pity that the game has 20 lvls
Let's use an example. Let's suppose i want to build a knight-styled character with some dark side, who like to lie, it's a vigilant member of tge king guard, and belong to a noble house, full of traditions. Let's call him "Jamie Kingslayer" for easy reference.
Sounds good to me.
"Jamie" needs to have Ride to fuel his Mounted Combat ability. He also needs perception, being a vigilant king guard. He needs bluff and sensemotive, to fill the concept of lies and overall good social panache. He should have also knowledge nobility and/or history.
I'm with you up until here:
Probably we should round him with a couple points in proffession soldier, handle animal, climb, swim, jump, etc, as he is quite agile and athlethic without being an acrobat.
Profession: Soldier doesn't fit the "Knight" character. Common soldiers make soldiering their career. Knights are nobles. Your "profession" is "being born to the right house."
Handle Animal needs a couple of ranks, and that's it. Squires take care of your steed and other needs (the issue here is you either need to convince your GM to let you take Leadership [a tough sell], or you have to suck up the fact that PF is just not going to have the support that certain character-types need/want.)Climb/Jump/Swim you only need passable amounts of. 1-3 ranks, depending on where you want your "strong points" to be, and with CC bonus you're all set.
However, once I reach to level 15, my skills are USELESS because I can't keep them on par with the challenges. Mounted combat is of no use if I can only give my mount a measly 1/2 my level ranks in AC. At level 15, anything less than a maxed out perception won't see any ambush at all. The obscure lore involved in high level adventures ask for high DC history rolls. I can't deceive anyone with non maxed bluff, because targets with sense motive will have very high rolls. Likewise, any one will lie me.
My intimidation will not intimidate anyone, because demoralize is based in HD. And so on.
•Mounted Combat: Useless WAY before you get to the part where you have to worry about your skills if your base class is a Fighter. ;)
•Non-Maxed Perception: If a non-maxed Perception is what it takes to notice any ambush, then that's your GM's fault, not the game's.•Knowledge Skills: These were meant for background flavor. It is not your class's role to know obscure or ancient secrets and such - That's what "learned" characters are for (ie: Bards, Wizards, certain Rogues, etc.)
•Non-Maxed Bluff/Sense Motive: See, Non-Maxed Perception. GM issue, not game issue.
•Intimidate: If you're building towards a real Intimidate build, you'll make this skill work. If you're just having it because it fits the character, it's fine if it doesn't always work.
I hated 3.5 Fighter, but PF Fighter is actually quite great. Especially with the Shatter Defenses and Greater Vital Strike feats. Throw in the 2H-Fighter Archetype and you're rockin'. I'm a GM by default and have an NPC known as "Guantlet" because of his locked gauntlets and wielding an adamantine greatsword in fullplate.
Long story short, he does his job. They see him and while the casters go, "Ohnoes... touch ac pwn't", he has the allies to give him the necessary protections for such enemies.
The fighter is only the foreward-man early game. Once he hits a higher level, he relies on the squishy allies he's carried that far to help him. I like to think of it by using Caramon and Raistlin Majere. Raistlin owed his life to Caramon. Sadly, once Raistlin became powerful enough, he cast aside his brother - but he still needed him until then.
Once the mages reach a certain level they should be aiding the fighter.
It's a team-based game and honestly, an overrun-based fighter (like Gauntlet) who can close with the enemy spellcasters due to allies buffs makes the squishies terrified. (and you CAN'T argue that a proper buffer can be out-done by a GC)
Any GM who wants to try my "Guantlet" out, let me know and I'll send you a spreadsheet "by-the-level". You'll need to figure out gear by otherwise you're good.
medeimatt(at)gmail(dot)com
Perception, bluff abd sense motive are rolled against other skills. Without a maxed perception, you won't be able to notice any creature that has stealth (ie: the ones which ambush you). Same goes with intimidate (which rolls vs HD). And that my jamie lannister-inspired char should know a lot of stuff about the old targaryen, the knights of past, the sword of dawn, etc, it's not a matter of my class role but my character concept .
agree that he doesn't need to max out jump, climb or handle animal. Just a few ranks in each is enough. But they are like 4 different skills, 3 ranks each mean 12 levels worth of skills. Add Sense Motive, Bluff, a bit of diplomacy, know history and nobility, intimidate, ride, and prof ssoldir (which is used to know about warfare, logistics, tactics, and how to siege among other things), and with 2 skills per levrl you won't be able to have them at 1/2 level in ranks. Much less have them maxed. That means at 12th lvl you won't notice any ambushing appropiated levrl CR, you are bassically unable to lie or percieve lies of anyone who is not a fighter too, you can't ride to levels where your riding feats matter, and you couldn't keep the pace with your concept of being studious of the knightly legends of past.
So again, this is not a matter of people wanting to minmax. It's a question of which kind of games you play. Sure, if you play level 1-5 ribse and repeat, with a bit of effort you can have a rank or three in the skills your character concept needs. But if you play up to levels 12-20, then you simply can't keep your skills relevant, because you can't place enough ranks on them
So i just spent a lot of time combing all of pathfinder for decent feats and managed to make a decent WF-tree Fighter with plenty of tricks, and 3 really useful skills (Perception, Survival, and UMD; took extra traits to have them all be class skills).
Now my optimization required the use of 4 books and can only be done as a human.
But there are also Intimidation build fighters that could work, but I prefer survival over intimidate, so I didn't go that route.
I'm not convinced that this fighter wouldn't be a critical member of the party from 1-20.
Now the amount of optimization needed is an issue, but I've always seen fighters as the expert level class intended for players with high-system mastery. Full casters have the "I-can't-screw-up-my-build" factor that makes them what I push new players to when they start D&D.
This still doesn't do away with the fact that the majority of feats suck
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanics of the fighter are that he is a master of weapons, armor, and gets more feats then other martials.
He's also dumb, clumsy, and has NO physical training to speak of (none of his feats raise stats), beyond the use of weapons and armor.
So the 'I train, train, train' shtick for fighters? Complete nonsense. Training implies getting SKILLS as well as feats. There are NO serious fighters who don't exercise their minds as well as their bodies in pursuit of combat excellence.
Fighters should be the masters of combat in all its forms, and they quite simply are NOT. Trying to throw fluff about training in there to them is just that...fluff. Fighters are good with weapons and armor and suck at everything else.
==========
I don't mind feats that scale with BAB, but that is a flat benefit that benefits all martial classes.
Fighters need more feats that only advance if you are a FIGHTER. Weapon Focus should be +1 to hit for everyone, and the first step on the Weapon Spec auto-advance for fighters.
Other feats should do the exact same thing. Skill focus +3 in a skill, +6 at 10th? For a fighter, make it a class skill and grant him half his fighter level in ranks in it, too.
The fighter does not actually need more feats...unless you want to have feats that consist of swapping in and out other feats, i.e. modular feats.
Too many feats is too much to keep track of, unless you are doing modular.
What the fighter needs is feats that are full class features, like ki powers, Extra Lay On Hands, Ranger Spells, Rage Powers, and Spells are.
A fighter should need one feat each to get the whole weapon focus/spec tree, the whole Vital Strike tree, the Spring Attack tree, etc. You don't need to give him extra dumb feats he isn't going to use. You need to make the feats he takes as awesome as anything the barb can grab.
And there is NO satisfactory argument for the barb having 4 skill points and the fighter getting 2. None. barbs are the original stupid melee combatant...they don't think, they rage.
Fighters are the students and scholars of battle. Yet, it is restricted only to weapons and armor. Feh, I say.
As for clerics and other primary spellcasters only getting 2 skill points, that is totally and completely justified. You don't invest in skills if you have magic. You invest in more magic. Casters don't NEED tons of skills to survive...they only need the skills that support their spellcasting.
Oh, and Mages getting more skill points then rogues is actually rather difficult. It takes a Mage with 22 Int to match a rogue's skill point allotment with a 10 Int. A mage who starts with a 16 Int will never have more skill points then a rogue who bothers to invest at all in Int-boosters.
==Aelryinth
Int magic items give skill points now.
So any int-based caster will have more skill points than a 10 int rogue.
The 10 Int rogue can wear Int boosts too. So, no, that's not true, marthkus.
And if you're going to go that route, if you're throwing money on the table, any class can have any skill they want by investing 4k into an appropriate headband and swapping in and out. 40k gets you +10 skills on demand, better then any class out there.
So, stop making the argument with gold, it gets really silly when you do that.
==Aelryinth
The 10 Int rogue can wear Int boosts too. So, no, that's not true, marthkus.
And if you're going to go that route, if you're throwing money on the table, any class can have any skill they want by investing 4k into an appropriate headband and swapping in and out. 40k gets you +10 skills on demand, better then any class out there.
So, stop making the argument with gold, it gets really silly when you do that.
==Aelryinth
Mages WILL have an Int boosting item
A rogue may grab a +2, but it gives him no benifit aside from more skill points (of which he has plenty)
This doesn't stop a wizard with 28 int from having 11 skill points per level. (and No int based casters start at 18 int not 16 regardless of point buy)
EDIT: Swapping out hats takes a full day before you get skill points. Not practical for anything but crafting
At high levels, the Rogue will want more skills because everybody does. If he has the gold, no reason not to get it.
And that rogue list of skills is VERY long. If he wants to have all the skills on his list, he MUST grab an Int booster.
And the archetype of intelligent rogues is VERY strong. Sherlock Holmes, anyone? Indeed, most heist movies are all about extremely smart and clever individuals, not just highly skilled doormats.
==Aelryinth
I'm sorry how are rogues important for this thread? I forgot.
I'm sorry how are rogues important for this thread? I forgot.
well according to you, giving fighters 2 more skill points will result in rogues getting 10 skill points a level and full BAB.
One of the problems I have with giving the fighter more skill points is because that is an easy-bad-lazy band-aid to the Fighter utility problem. It is one of those solutions that reeks of "power-creep".
Here's a cycle
1. Fight gets 4+int
2. No one should have 2+int
3. Wizard, Cleric, Summoner, Paladin ect get 4+int
4. Actual 4+int classes feel shafted. They get 6+int. (except for the barbar who now becomes angry fighter with little actual difference between the two)
5. Rangers feel shafted. They get 8+int
6. Problems with the Rogue come to a head
7. Rogues get 10+int and full BAB
8. Fighter need more skill points
9. Fighters get 6+int
...
Eventually. Steps 2-6 need to happen first.
I don't think that snowball will happen. At best skills, BAB, Saves and HD would have a standard of Good, Medium and Poor and things would get reallotted and balanced accordingly rather than power creep everything.
Weirdly this thread inspired me to write up a fighter.
I don't actually find them that bad. They take optimization, but atleast they can be optimized unlike the rogue or monk.
EDIT: I normally don't use 3 splat books to write-up a character and it has taken me one year of playing to find a combo that I liked, but I still can't make a decent monk or rogue.
Eventually. Steps 2-6 need to happen first.
steps 2 and 3 are going to be a hard push, paladin MIGHT get a pass, but full casters (especially wizards) have so many workarounds for skills the devs wouldn't bother. Summoner's can just summon something to perform the skill for them. these are unique workarounds that feat investment is laughable for them to maintain some of these skills.
I've seen many thresds on Monk but what exactly is the problem with Rogues? I've seen them referenced as one of the weakest classes a lot but I've never seen anything specific and it doesn't help that I never played one.